Captain Craig wrote:
rates him on a comeback with Airbender
(an A- grade), sorry to rock the boat of the haters.
Yep. Airbender is his "comeback."
It has a 7% Rotten Tomatoes
with 10 positive reviews out of 140. (2 out of 29 on the "top critics" tab.) Don't like Rotten Tomatoes? Think it's too skewed? Okay, Metacritic
gives it a "naturalized" score of 20 out of 100 points with one
positive review out of 33!
The "user" rating is at 3.1 (average of 290 pollsters) and has 45 out of 151 positive user reviews.
On the financial front the movie's domestical total has yet to, and likely will not, meet the movie's production budget (likely be to half again larger when any advertising is factored in). The world wide total right now stands at around $250m which "at best" means the movie, after production and advertising costs, has broken even. (Box Office Mojo)
So it may not be strictly
a "flop" it's Box Office success isn't great at all and when all is said and done after DVD sales the movie will turn a modest profit, but won't blow anyones skirts up. Given the movie's critical
backlash, as well as fan backlash, it is hardly
a "hit" either financially, critically, or from the Airbender Fandom (which from what I have seen have pretty much said the movie doesn't do the source material proper justice) I wouldn't say the movie is a comeback for M. Night in any way whatsoever.
When the guy first came on the scene majorly with Sixth Sense in 1999, yeah, the guy was awesome. I thought Unbreakable was okay and wasn't a huge fan of Signs. Word of mouth alone pretty much prevented me from seeing his other movies and the stuff I heard about them didn't really impress me much. The guy is hardly the next, or current, Spielberg, Hitchcock, or any of the other great movie makers. Making one, big, movie that had everyone talking in ten years, two others people mostly shurg at and say "had flaws but was good", and then like three or four others where people face-palm just thinking about them (trees, what the fuck?!) and now
to the point where people think a movie is worth not
seeing just because your name on it hardly makes you a great film-maker.
In all honest. He has one
good movie he's made in 10 years that still stands up as good but, really, only if you don't know the twist in it.
You upset with USA or the messenger?
Anyone that's read my posts the last 7yrs knows I don't buy into RT or any other critic site.
Staying with the theme lets not just
look at the Critics score of 7% vs the RTCommunity(avid moviegoers) score of 43%
. Yes I know that still isn't fresh but it is way more closer(60% for fresh) than the critics opinion, here is the point though. That is a huge disparity. You're much more likely to get a 'meh' out of Joe Regular on his opinion of TLA
than those visiting RT. The hate just isn't there.
I work in a tech office with 14 people, men&women. Of those 12 really like movies. Know how many have a RT account, who care enough to go in and vote on it so people like you can use it as a barometer....ZERO. I am the only one with an account.
I say know yourself and see what you know you like. Critics be damned. I'll say that its box office to date is no doubt due to some negative word of mouth by Joe Average Moviegoer at the office/church but too many people put their trust in the 7% to decide for them.
What I find interesting is that they have pegged it a 'comeback' film. The reality is that its only his scond film(LITW) to not make back production budget in US theatrical run.
: bud-60m, US-114m,WW-256m
: bud-48m, US-64m, WW-163m
If anything he's had inconsistent B.O. return compared to his first 6yrs vs the last 6yrs, quality can be left to subjective analysis.
I am curious about Devil
. An interesting thing will be to see if the movie achieves now that his name is being downplayed. Akin to a 10yr old saying they don't want to try something cause they know peas are in it vs not knowing then finding they like it anyway.